Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby seasmith » Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:22 am

Conclusion
Here we present a visualization spanning over 200 magnetograms from SOHO/MDI and SDO/HMI, which transforms each into three PFSS models for the dipole, quadrupole and octupole components of the Solar magnetic field. This video, in essence, highlights the results of Section 3 in Ref. 1, and although this does not show anything new, it is an interesting way to view the wealth of solar data available.

The evolution of the dipole, quadrupole and octupole components of the global magnetic field during the last 22 years. Top Left: Synoptic magnetograms from both MDI and HMI in a time series from 1996.6-2017.9, the color represents the radial magnetic field with the color scale covering -50G to 50G. Top Right: The decomposed components from the spherical harmonic analysis, from top to bottom, dipole, quadrupole and octupole, with increasing m from left to right (the leftmost panels represent the axisymmetric components). Bottom Row: PFSS reconstructions of the dipole, quadrupole, and octupole components alone, each including all values of m for their given

https://player.vimeo.com/video/24838790 ... ode=opaque [21 second reconstruction]

http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/?p=2129


Image

Image

Another word of caution came from Hathaway, who notes that the Maunder Minimum might have been a catastrophic event rather than a gradual trend. “Many of my colleagues are poring over historical records to find out . . . what did lead up to the Maunder Minimum?” he says. “New observations suggestion that the cycle before the Maunder Minimum wasn’t particularly small.”

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronom ... 100-years/


Changes in magnetic fluxes usually follow changes in electric currents, at least here on Earth.
It might be speculated that the decadal changes in the solar magnetic field follow variations in local galactic charge flows. The scrambling of the fields, as noted here by others, may be allowing the infiltration of GR’s into the solar system.

As a side note, the rotation of the solar mag field (imaged above) probably also becomes more chaotic, blowing up Parker’s “ballarina skirt”.
That rotation, faster at the ecliptic than at the poles, may be an insight into H A Staples’ “solar sweep”; elaborated in his seminal work Cosmic Machinery.
[1939]
seasmith
 
Posts: 2723
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:58 am

It's really hard to believe that the mainstream is being so stubborn and so unwilling to include the effects of electric fields and current flow patterns into their solar model when the evidence of those currents is staring them in the face.

Charged particle current is moving in one (inbound) direction in the form of incoming high speed positively charged cosmic rays which are continuously transferring high speed current one direction, and in the form of high speed and electron beams that are flowing away from the sun in the other direction. How can they even miss this stuff?

http://crop.unl.edu/about/faq.html

How many cosmic rays strike the ground each second?

The flux of cosmic rays falls off rapidly as the cosmic ray energy increases. For 1 GeV particles, the rate is about 10,000 per square meter per second. At 1000 GeV (or 1012 eV), the rate is only 1 particle per square meter per second.


Emphasis mine. NASA and the mainstream have of course also measured the outbound electron flow:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strahl_(astronomy)
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sune ... trahl.html
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:00 pm

Interesting topic. Oops, I didn't notice Michaels' last post. I'll comment below.

This seems to show that cosmic rays greatly decline during the active phase of the solar cycle. Why would that be?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/SpaceEnvironmentOverview_From_19830101.jpg/800px-SpaceEnvironmentOverview_From_19830101.jpg

CR Data
Here's CR data from an article, Human Safety in the Lunar Environment at http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/human.html
The solar wind is an isotropically distributed, neutral plasma travelling at an average velocity of 400 km/sec. In Earth/Moon space, it has an average density of about 10 particles per cubic centimeter (Taylor 1982, p. 155). This plasma is composed of a relatively constant flux of charged particles, mainly electrons and protons, plus ions of various elements. ... Galactic cosmic rays are apparently isotropically produced outside the solar system. The average cosmic ray flux has been almost constant over the past 50 million years (Taylor 1982, p. 159). Cosmic rays are made up of very high energy particles consisting mostly of protons and electrons, plus some heavy nuclei (iron, for example), positrons, and gamma rays. Both the Earth and the Moon are exposed to these cosmic rays, but the Moon's surface receives a higher intensity of cosmic rays than does the Earth's surface. The Earth's magnetic field and atmosphere provide significant protection, lacking on the Moon. The cosmic ray flux per square centimeter of lunar surface per year (during minimum solar activity) contains 1.29 x 10^8 protons plus 1.24 x 10^7 helium nuclei plus 1.39 x 10^6 heavier ions for a total of 1.4279 x 10^8 particles per cm^2 per year.*

Compare Solar Wind & CR
Solar Wind (from first two sentences): 400km/s = 4x10^5m/s = 4x10^7cm/s; 4x10^7cm/s x 10 particles/cm^3 = 4x10^8 particles/cm^2/s
Cosmic Rays (from last sentence): 1.4x10^8 particles/cm^2/yr x 1yr/31556736s = 4.44 particles/cm^2/s

_Did I calculate right?
_Doesn't the solar wind start out much denser leaving the Sun than it is when it reaches Earth? And it continues to diminish until it's close to zero at Saturn. Right?
_The cosmic ray density would be about constant throughout the solar system. Would it not?
_So the CR flux reaching the Sun should be the same as on the Moon, 4.44 particles/cm^2/s. The fast-moving positive and negative charges repel each other magnetically while attracting electrically, so they can't combine. And with both positive and negative charges, isn't the net charge neutral, as it is in the solar wind? If it's not neutral, what's the data on that?
_Individual particles of cosmic rays do more damage to the Moon's surface, because they're much faster moving. But they're very sparse. They may be 100 or 1000 times more energetic than the solar wind, but they're nearly a billion times less dense.
_Anyway, this weak flux can't be called an electric current. Can it?

Michael, do you have sources saying that cosmic rays are net positive and the solar wind net negative charge? If so, how much charge each? The above quote suggests they're both net neutral.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4232
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby Solar » Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:45 am

Michael Mozina wrote:It's really hard to believe that the mainstream is being so stubborn and so unwilling to include the effects of electric fields and current flow patterns into their solar model when the evidence of those currents is staring them in the face.

Charged particle current is moving in one (inbound) direction in the form of incoming high speed positively charged cosmic rays which are continuously transferring high speed current one direction, and in the form of high speed and electron beams that are flowing away from the sun in the other direction. How can they even miss this stuff?


They don't "miss this stuff". It depends on what aspect of the mainstream literature one has prioritized them self toward reading:

Computer simulations help explain these observations by showing that a complex electric field near the lunar surface is generated by sunlight and the flow of the solar wind. The simulation reveals this electric field can generate electron beams by accelerating electrons blasted from surface material by solar ultraviolet light. Also, related simulations show that when ions in the solar wind collide with ancient, "fossil" magnetic fields in certain areas on the lunar surface, they are reflected back into space in a diffuse, fountain-shaped pattern. These ions are mostly the positively charged ions (protons) of hydrogen atoms, the most common element in the solar wind. - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind


Its just a matter of sifting through the literature and learning to refine one's search terms as exemplified by references to any number of articles and docs on this forum:

TESTING THE DC-ELECTRIC FIELD MODEL IN A SOLAR FLARE OBSERVED BY YOHKOH AND THE COMPTON GAMMA-RAY OBSERVATORY- D. M. ZARRO et al 1995 February 20

The above example is 22yrs old. Here is a more recent reference:

Abstract. The sequence of phenomena consisting of solar flares, coronal mass ejections (CMEs), auroral substorms, and geomagnetic storms is mostly a manifestation of electromagnetic energy dissipation. Thus, first of all, it is natural to consider each of them in terms of a sequence of power supply (dynamo), power transmission (electric currents/circuits), and dissipation (mostly observed phenomena), i.e., as an input–output process and the electric current line approach. Secondly, extending this concept, it is attempted in this paper to consider the whole solar–terrestrial relationship in terms of electric currents. This approach enables us to follow through not only the sequence in solar flares, auroral substorms, and geomagnetic storms but also to connect all phenomena naturally as a continuous flow of magnetic energy (V[B2∕8π]) from the sun across the magnetopause. This consideration gives some insight into all the processes involved equally well compared with the magnetic field line approach, which has been adopted almost exclusively in the past. - 21 Aug 2017 The electric current approach in the solar–terrestrial relationship: Syun-Ichi Akasofu


Solar eruptive phenomena, like flares and coronal mass ejections(CMEs) are governed by magnetic fields. To describe the structure of these phenomena one needs information on the magnetic flux density and the electric current density vector components in three dimensions throughout the atmosphere. However, current spectro-polarimetric measurements typically limit the determination of the vector magnetic field only to the photosphere. Therefore, there is considerable interest in accurate modeling of the solar coronal magnetic field using photospheric vector magnetograms as boundary data. In this work, we model the coronal magnetic field for global solar atmosphere using a nonlinear force-free field(NLFFF) extrapolation codes implemented to a synoptic maps of photospheric vector magnetic field synthesized from Vector Spectromagnetograph (VSM) on Synoptic Optical Long-term Investigations of the Sun (SOLIS) as boundary condition. Using the resulting three dimensional magnetic field, we calculate the three dimensional electric current density and free magnetic energy throughout the solar atmosphere for Carrington rotation 2124. We found that spatially, the low-lying, current-carrying core field demonstrates strong concentration of free energy in the AR core, from the photosphere to the lower corona; the coronal field becomes slightly more sheared in the lowest layer and it relaxes to the potential field configuration with height. The free energy density appears largely co-spatial with the electric current distribution. - Global Solar Free Magnetic Energy and Electric Current Density Distribution of Carrington Rotation 2124: Tilaye Tadesse et al


(a) Electric currents flow in this gas, and create a magnetic field around the filament, as shown by the green circular field line in the Figure. At the same time, the filament is surrounded by magnetic field lines rooted below the solar photosphere – they emerge from the solar interior. - Solar Cosmic Rays, Flares, and Coronal Mass Ejections: Neutron Monitor Database


There are so very many docs like these in the literature that its possible to get bored reading them. Where is the "stubborn" part???
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby seasmith » Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:01 pm

Lloyd wrote:Interesting topic.

This seems to show that cosmic rays greatly decline during the active phase of the solar cycle. Why would that be?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/SpaceEnvironmentOverview_From_19830101.jpg/800px-SpaceEnvironmentOverview_From_19830101.jpg


Image

Image


This plot shows data from the Climax, Colorado neutron monitor operated by the University of Chicago. The cosmic rays show an inverse relationship to the sunspot cycle because Sun's magnetic field is stronger during sunspot maximum and shields the Earth from cosmic rays.

https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/cosmicrays.html


Hence the comment above about solar magnetic field being scrambled between sunspot cycles, as quadrupoles and octupoles develope and allowing cosmic rays into the solar system.
I think that was the Stanford group's interpretation.

http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/?p=2129
seasmith
 
Posts: 2723
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Jan 05, 2018 11:41 pm

Lloyd wrote:Interesting topic. Oops, I didn't notice Michaels' last post. I'll comment below.

This seems to show that cosmic rays greatly decline during the active phase of the solar cycle. Why would that be?


FYI, I'm still thinking about the implications of all this, and I'm speculating of course.

The active phases of the sun kick out more plasma and dense plasma shock waves flowing away from the sun. When the sun is not 'quiet", we see dense plasma mass flows flung outward toward space, and the active discharge regions on the solar surface are emitting high speed particles that flow away from the sun with massive amounts of energy. This increase in outbound mass flow during active cycles creates a slightly more dense 'atmosphere' inside the solar system bubble between the solar surface and the heliosphere. I suspect that increase in solar atmospheric density results in more particle collisions between inbound cosmic rays, and outbound ions and electrons. Fewer cosmic rays can penetrate all the way to Earth during those active times. More of them collide with the slightly more dense helio-atmosphere.

In terms of total current flow into the solar system however, it's not just the cosmic rays that reach all the surface of the photosphere that count, it's all the cosmic rays bombarding the double layers of the heliosphere that count as current, regardless of where the particle is actually absorbed. Because the sun has a fairly large "atmosphere" between the surface of the sun and the heliosphere we are protected a large portion of the cosmic ray bombardment.

I'm starting to realize just how complicated the wiring diagrams might get, with current moving at different speeds in different parts of the circuitry.

In terms of the concept of a 'net neutral' solar wind, I think that's a bit of an oversimplification based on the complications related to particle speeds alone. We observe electron beams from the sun, and high speed strahl electrons that are traveling much faster than the average solar wind particle. The speed difference between various plasma particles, and the directional flow of particles (like cosmic rays) also add an overall 'current flow' process over time.

Suppose we take cubic meter of 'space" somewhere between the Earth and the moon. If we took a 'snapshot' of that meter of space we might find roughly the same number of electrons and protons in that space at that moment. In that sense it may appear to be "neutral'. There's a catch.....

If some of the high speed strahl electrons are traveling faster than the solar wind, then over a period of time, more electrons would flow through that cubic meter of space than protons, even if every 'snapshot" was net neutral in that instant.

If we add the complexity of particle direction issues, then we might observe cosmic ray ions moving toward the sun, meaning that over time there's a current flow pattern that occurs when there's inbound particles flowing into the sun too. The concept of "net neutral" doesn't necessarily mean its "non current carrying'.

I think we better be careful about talking about the total current associated cosmic rays since any strike of a comic ray inside the solar system atmosphere counts as a + charged flow into the solar system, and that collision process is happening all they way out to the heliosphere.

As you rightly point out, be the time cosmic rays reach the moon or the Earth, they aren't anywhere near numerous enough to compete with the solar wind in terms of it's net effect.

As it relates to current moving inbound to the whole solar system, I think we'll have to figure out how many cosmic rays actually pass into the sun's helisophere, not just their numbers when they reach Earth.

I'll round you up some good links in the morning.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:01 am

Solar wrote:There are so very many docs like these in the literature that its possible to get bored reading them. Where is the "stubborn" part???


They're stubborn In the lab, that's where. They stubbornly refuse to experiment with any of these models, and apply an electric field to a terrella in a vacuum chamber. It's just sad that Birkeland was the last person to fully test the various possible configurations in the lab with a big enough budget to test a large number of configurations.

Meanwhile we're sinking *another* 55 million into the LUX-LZ experiment despite the fact that LUX, PandaX-II and Xenon-1T found exactly nothing. If we diverted that kind of money into solar physics experiments, I'm sure the mainstream would actually learn something about the heat source of the sun's corona. :)

You are very right however that there is plenty of supporting literature out there to be found and read if one is looking for it.

The problem is that everywhere the mainstream should be describing electric fields and electrical discharges, they're instead writing about 'magnetic reconnection. That's pretty darn stubborn.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby querious » Sat Jan 06, 2018 9:50 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
Solar wrote:There are so very many docs like these in the literature that its possible to get bored reading them. Where is the "stubborn" part???


They're stubborn In the lab, that's where. They stubbornly refuse to experiment with any of these models, and apply an electric field to a terrella in a vacuum chamber.


What scientist in his right mind would think a terrella is at all useful for modeling the extremely complex processes in the sun? Your desire for a return to simplistic Victorian-era physics is just sad. Get over it and learn about the real world.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sun Jan 07, 2018 2:06 pm

querious wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:
Solar wrote:There are so very many docs like these in the literature that its possible to get bored reading them. Where is the "stubborn" part???


They're stubborn In the lab, that's where. They stubbornly refuse to experiment with any of these models, and apply an electric field to a terrella in a vacuum chamber.


What scientist in his right mind would think a terrella is at all useful for modeling the extremely complex processes in the sun? Your desire for a return to simplistic Victorian-era physics is just sad. Get over it and learn about the real world.


:) What "real world"? LCDM is 95 percent "make believe" with 5 percent pseudoscience which is why mainstream astronomers still can't explain something as *obvious* as a sustained full sphere hot solar corona. Meanwhile Birkeland not only explained it, he simulated it in his lab.

It's precisely the fact that the mainstream *refuses* to trust in the value of empirical physics which leaves it stuck in the dark ages of metaphysics and pseudoscience.

Just one DM experiment diverted to recreating Birkeland's full range of lab work would revolutionize solar theory as we know it. But noooooooooo..........

Instead they toss money after bad and throw away the most empirically successful particle physics theory in the history of physics.

That's the part that is just "sad".
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby Solar » Sun Jan 07, 2018 7:27 pm

I would apologize for the linkfest but I think its needed:

Terrella in Vacuum

Michael Mozina wrote:They're stubborn In the lab, that's where. They stubbornly refuse to experiment with any of these models, and apply an electric field to a terrella in a vacuum chamber. It's just sad that Birkeland was the last person to fully test the various possible configurations in the lab with a big enough budget to test a large number of configurations.

NASA used a Terrella in vacuum circa 1966 to simulate the Van Allen Belts: Simulated Van Allen Belts

NASA's Brief Coverage of the: Planeterra from France

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory: Note the .gov suffix in the url. Clicking on the left-hand section "Modeled Astrophysical Phenomena" will bring up "Solar Corona" using the terrella and an Internet widget to play with settings.

UCLA Experimental Space Physics: Planeterrella for "Space Weather" related work.

Iowa College has one built by students in 2015 because "It was here that James Van Allen worked to discover Earth’s radiation belts." Aalto University has one, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory in the U.S. has used one, Columbia University has used one for a Collsionless Terella Experiment. NASA simply does not explain that terrella have been used to model some of the space plasma physics in use today. Its kind of like NASA not explaining the number of course adjustments all probes have made on the way to the various planets. People then assume that something doesn't occur.

I'm assuming that the embedded knowledge gained over the years via terrella, along with observations and measurements of other planetary Aurore, constitutes a portion of what was used in the ESA SWARM Birkeland referenced assessments which also had Citizen Scientist input with regard to "Steve":

The theory that there are huge electric currents, powered by solar wind and guided through the ionosphere by Earth’s magnetic field, was postulated more than a century ago by Norwegian scientist Kristian Birkeland.
It wasn’t until the 1970s, after the advent of satellites, however, that these ‘Birkeland currents’ were confirmed by direct measurements in space. - Super Sonic Plasma Jets Discovered


NASA has long known what a Birkeland inspired terrella in vacuum is and they are still in use when needed. There is a proposal for a new terrella: Asymmetric Reconnection EXperiment (AREX) to study.... "magnetic reconnection"; but the MMS Mission has something to say:

Electric Fields

Michael Mozina wrote:The problem is that everywhere the mainstream should be describing electric fields and electrical discharges, they're instead writing about 'magnetic reconnection. That's pretty darn stubborn.


This was briefly touched on in the thread (MMS Detects: “Gigantic spike in Parallel Electric Field”) with link to video presentation, timeframe to jump to for electric field explanation, unofficial transcript with relevant sections highlighted, and the following relevant paper:

MMS Observations of Parallel Electric Fields Associated with Magnetic Reconnection R. E. Ergun et al

The "magnetic reconnection" colloquialism is just … a referent to magnetic energy. The term is not my cup of tea either but I basically ignore it in favor of publications on probe data regarding electric fields, magnetic fields, electron dynamics, ion dynamics, plasma dynamics, double layer dynamics, etc. There has already been statement that the electric field is the "smoking gun" of this acceleration process i.e. its cause. It infers expectation of acceleration via electric field; but the intensity of same was underestimated. Astrophysics can to war with itself between the expectations of Ideal Plasmas where the electric field was assumed to have "shorted out" along with the "frozen in" magnetic field concept versus the results of Non-Ideal, or, Non-Linear Plasmas regularly encountered by probes. They actually expected to find E-field(s); but were surprised by its pulsating strength.

MMS Science data center: The two links under the "Open Access Papers" section is loaded with papers to mine.

Here are two unrelated, and just as free as one pleases, works on electric field and Jupiter:

Can Large Electric Fields Power Jupiter’s X-ray Auroras?

Click "more" to read article. Afterward click "Read the Article" for a separate free paper. Neither contain the phrase "magnetic reconnection". The second contains an argument that "quasi-neutrality" (almost equal density of opposite charges; but not really, as opposed to idealized "over all neutral" densities) need to be maintained "at all time and positions" per a reference to Temerin and Carlson, 1998.

The language won't be changing any time soon.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby querious » Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:53 pm

Solar wrote:I would apologize for the linkfest but I think its needed:


Solar,
The linkfest may indeed be "needed", but it's still useless against Mozina's rock-solid belief that the "mainstream" is always clueless and willfully blind. No matter how much you contradict, with proof, his demonstrable ignorance of the work done by scientists to understand the world, he will easily fall back on "but LCMD is BS!".

BTW, Solar - do you think the conventional explanation of the sun's energy is correct?
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby Solar » Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:52 am

querious wrote:BTW, Solar - do you think the conventional explanation of the sun's energy is correct?


Hello Querious

If the gravitationally collapsing cloud and thermonuclear approach to the manifestation of stars is what is being referred to; no. I do not think it to be correct.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:33 pm

Solar wrote:The "magnetic reconnection" colloquialism is just … a referent to magnetic energy. The term is not my cup of tea..


This magnetic energy is also nonsense.

1) There is no magnetic energy, unless it is accompanied by electric currents, similar the induction of a spool.
So the energy is the equivalent of the self-sustainability of the magnetic field, which is high in a spool.
But very low in plasma. That is because plasma "has no windings like a spool".

2) Magnetism by itself can not do anything, unless we have ferromagnetic material, of which there is none.
And unless we have moving charged matter.
So magnetism on the sun does not matter at all, unless we already have currents.
And it only affects those currents.

3) The origin of the magnetism is also unexplained.
a) There must be very strong electric currents around those places to cause
such magnetic fields, but they are not visible.
b) Nor can such currents be caused by "primordial magnetic fields", as mainstream calls them.
Magnetic fields can not be stable. Magnetic fields in plasma always degrade.


But that is not what we seem to see on the sun, according to the mainstream.
And I have not even touched the insanity that is magnetic reconnection.
There is just so much wrong with the mainstream sun.

But why does mainstream science think that way?

That is because:

1) they think to see magnetic fields when they see the zeeman effect in action.
But this is actually the Stark effect.

2) They think that the lines on the sun are magnetic field lines.
But in reality these are electric currents.

3) Maintain the wrong theories, because the PhDs want to publish their papers.

But generally I think the problem is that most observations of magnetic fields are based
on the zeeman effect, while it is actually the Stark effect.
They look the same.

Soon there will be a solar probe (Parker satellite) that measures the fields around the sun.
Sadly they are misjudging the plasma around the sun, so this satellite may not live long.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:58 pm

Solar wrote:I would apologize for the linkfest but I think its needed:


Thank you for the list of links. That was informative. I appreciate it.

Here's what I don't understand and perhaps you can enlighten me.

The third link you mentioned does indeed discuss a solar corona simulation, which they produced by making the surface of the small terrella negative, just as Birkeland did. Based on their images, it clearly worked.

If they "know" that electric fields work in the lab to generate a full sphere corona, why aren't they discussing
"electric* fields and what's with their ongoing fascination with 'magnetic reconnection"? Aflven's double layer paper makes the whole MR concept obsolete and irrelevant in current carrying environments, and the mainstream's own experiments with a solar corona demonstrates that it *is* a current carrying environment. I really don't understand the mainstream's fascination with MR theory, and their lack of mention of any charge separation between the surface of the sun and the heliosphere.

I still see no evidence that they placed any real value on the corona experiments you listed in terms of their overall approach to understanding the heat source of the corona. It's like their attitude is: "Ya, electric fields works in the lab to generate a corona, but that's not how the sun works. " I really don't get it.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Jan 08, 2018 4:15 pm

querious wrote:
Solar wrote:I would apologize for the linkfest but I think its needed:


Solar,
The linkfest may indeed be "needed", but it's still useless against Mozina's rock-solid belief that the "mainstream" is always clueless and willfully blind.


The mainstream is clueless with respect to existence of the electric field between the surface of the sun and the heliosphere. They certainly never discuss it or mention it.

The "willfully blind" criticism does seem to apply as well. PPPL even simulated a corona in that third link that Solar provided using electric fields, and yet they ignored the implication of that experiment as it relates to the heat source of the solar corona. Instead of using something that has been demonstrated to work in the lab to explain sustained hot plasma, as well as a full sphere hot corona, they choose to dabble with "pseudoscience" which is utterly incapable of producing the same sustained hot temperature results in the lab.

They might heat plasma up 'momentarily' by varying the magnetic field in the plasma, but there's no way that they can generate that same solar corona in the lab based on "magnetic reconnection".

What's up with that? It sure looks like a bad case of willful ignorance from where I sit. They know it works in the lab, but they refuse to consider it in space. What else can you call that behavior?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest